EverLearning wrote:
Airphoto, I plan on using the 120-300 with and without a 1.4x TC. I have the 100-400L right now with the APS-C 18MP 7D. Without getting into a lot of detail, I am disatisfied with the 7D's DR, high (?!) ISO capabilities and weather sealing among other things. Combine that with a rather slow 100-400 (esp. at the long end, where I do tend to shoot a lot), and it was time to consider alternatives; both within Canon and Nikon. I can crop the D800/120-300/1.4x TC to about 15MP to get the same image with better DR, noise and a stop faster. I have been told by several knowledgable people that the remaining pixels on the D800 image will still be better than those from the 7D (besides DR, noise). I need to do more research to see how usable the 2.0x TC would be on the 120-300, but I won't spend too much time researching TCs until the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 "Sport" comes out.
When the time comes, I think I will poke around locally to see if any friends/acquiantances have the Canon 24-70 2.8 and 24-120 4.0 that I might be able to borrow for a few hours.
...Show more →
You can always rent a lens for lenrentals,
I agree I came from 5dii and 1dsIII & 1ds. I didnt like the performance of the 100-400 on the 7d as you had surpassed the quality of the lens sensor combination. that being said. The focus system on the d800 is very good and the 120-300 OS is a super lens! The images i have gotten with the 2x tc sigma are just ok not superb. Sadly you cant use the Nikon tc III on the Sigma.
Airphoto, the problem with renting the lens is I would also want to shoot it on a D800 for testing the actual combo. Renting both would be quite expensive. If I add the 24-120 and the TCs to the rental mix, I'm getting into several hundred dollars for a test. Ouch!
I know this is getting off topic from my original post, but I am curious as to why you can't use the Nikon 2.0x TC III on the Sigma. You flat out can't take pictures? You have to manually focus? With the Sigma 2.0x TC, what is deficient using the 120-300; colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness,
I'm finding myself hoping the new 120-300 will have a nice improvement or two (besides the addition of a focus limiter); whether it is sharpness wide open at extreme focal lengths or playing better with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.
The holy trinity 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 are very close to best in class, if not best in class.
For more flexbility we now have a stable of F4s
16-35, 24-120 and 70-200
On the prime side a pretty nice set of choices too
24/35/50/85 1.4
28, 50 and 85 1.8
Are they perfect for each person's unique need, probably not when it comes to price, feature and optical tradeoff Nikon made compare to Canon.
If D800 is what you need/want you will need to get over the different choices between Canon L and a 5DMIII or the D800.
I think you would get a far more postive response if you highlighted your specific needs and concerns versus starting out with such a negative paragraph
Zooms are definitely a compromise but there are so many variables, including copy variation it would seem.
From my experience - I would say the Nikon 24-120 is on a par or slightly better than the Canon 24-105 - BUT, I've only used one copy of each so... From opinions I've read, I would guess they are not a million miles away from each other in terms of performance. Both are defintely a step down from Canon's 24-70 and I would assume Nikon's - but a lot lighter and greater reach.
My experience with Canon UWA zooms on the 1DSiii was not great - but the same performed far better on the original 5D - pixels do show up the flaws, though downsizing would of course negate the advantage for the 5D.
I tried a Nikon 16-35/4 last week - s/h and with the understanding I could return it if not entirely happy. It was not bad at all - definitely better than my experience with the Canon UWAs but still not great at the edges on a D800E. Definitely worse than my 17TSE - which you'd expect to be fair, as that is one amazing lens. Next I tried a 14-24 from someone selling his gear and it didn't take me long to work out that I could live with the extra few ounces and no easy filter solution for the improvement over the 16-35. Perhaps that just reflects the 2 copies I had at my disposal - but the difference was far greater than I'd anticipated. Far better edge/corner performance, which perhaps did not surprise me - but, more importantly, far better ability to resolve distant detail - which was always my problem with the Canon UWA zooms and what led me to get the 17TSE. The latter was one of the things stopping me from changing over but, having tried the 14-24, I'm confident I can live without it, even if I will miss the shift from time to time.
I will also miss the 70-200 2.8 IS ii - it is unbelievably good but the weight I will not miss and hope Nikons f/4 version will be as good as Canon's - if not, I'll get by with the odd prime, including the incredible 105mm 2.5 Ais I picked up for £125 this week -incredible lens, tiny and light as a feather!
I came from a 5dmkii and used the 24-105 as my main do-it-all lens, and loved it.
Now my D600 and 24-120 f4 is, well, better. The camera has a stop/stop and a half of high iso improvement, and the 24-120 (mine anyway) is perfectly sharp, rich colours/contrast (very L-like), fast and accurate AF, and excellent VR.
No complaints at all. To me, it feels like a 24-105 with better IS and extra reach. I used the 24-120 on my D7000 for about 6 months as well and loved it there also.
I read all the reviews as well. Can't quite figure it out. The forums are full of people who are actually USING the 24-120 f4 and loving it, yet the laboratory reviews show some flaws. I suspect the flaws are not hugely relevant for most regular picture taking, unless you are doing super critical work. It's a great, great combo IMHO.
Javier. 'OP would have been dismembered (rightfully so)'. somebody needs to get a grip. In all the Canon posts I have made and viewed the conduct demonstrated by some people here was very rarely seen 'there'. Sorry that my wording offended some delicate sensibilities. Geez!
For those that weren't offended by my less-than-optimal choice of words, I thank you for time and consideration of my questions. Your input truly was greatly appreciated.
EverLearning wrote:
Airphoto, the problem with renting the lens is I would also want to shoot it on a D800 for testing the actual combo. Renting both would be quite expensive. If I add the 24-120 and the TCs to the rental mix, I'm getting into several hundred dollars for a test. Ouch!
I know this is getting off topic from my original post, but I am curious as to why you can't use the Nikon 2.0x TC III on the Sigma. You flat out can't take pictures? YEP You have to manually focus? With the Sigma 2.0x TC, what is deficient using the 120-300; colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, Sharpeness suffers the most. because of Vr/ OS limitations. At 36mp every nuance of movement shows up even with vr on. Sigma says not but a monopod or tripdod helps. live view also helps.
There is a notch on the back of the Nikon tc so it doesnt match up with aanything but the correct Nikon lens. You can file it off but that requires removing the mount. The mount placement is critical. It is also my understanding that you would have to live focus or manual focus at that point. Focus at 600mm f/5.6 is critical!! Live focus works best. If your are shooting in to the light you will have a high refraction issue. The same is true using the nikon 2.0tciii on the 70-200mm vr to acheive 400mm.
You also cant use any nikon tc on a sigma lens. You can use the sigma 1.4 on a nikon lens withh excellent results.
The nikon 70-200mm with the 1.4xtc sigma is equal to the sigma 120-300mm in almost all shooting situations except shooting into bright light, same refraction issue. IF and when Nikon comes out with a 400mm vr f/5.6 or a 300mm vr f/4.0 I will trade in my Sigma.
Focusing the sigma without a tc is great for ground sports. with a tc it is slightly slower, The nikon is a faster focuser on the 70-200vr and the 300mm afs 4.0
I'm finding myself hoping the new 120-300 will have a nice improvement or two (besides the addition of a focus limiter); whether it is sharpness wide open at extreme focal lengths or playing better with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs....Show more →
bmwrider75, thank you for the great post and sharing your experiences. It seems that most people say it is a good lens or even a very good lens, which as you and I have noted, is somewhat of a departure from the pretty critical reviews. "Can't quite figure out". My thoughts as well!
Airphoto, thanks for the update. This is great info to know (even though a bit disappointing).
I recommend, and have, the 24-120/4 as my everyday walk-about lens coupled with the D800. I also use the 16-35/4 for landscape and other wide-angle work. I also intend (assuming the IQ is consistent) to purchase the 70-200/4 upon release which will complete the "f/4 Trilogy". Taken together with my 1.4, 1.8 and 2.8 primes (24, 50, 85, 105 and 150) and my 300/4 AF (for birding) my package will be complete. Needless to say, I am most satisfied with the 24-120/4 on all accounts.
I compared my 120-300 OS with Sigma 2X to the 300 VR2 with TC20 II (before I sold the 300) on a D800E and couldn't see any appreciable sharpness difference between the two. The 300 VR2 AF's faster (especially in low light) and rendered a bit more color but without directly comparing identical shots I don't see any everyday difference.
The 120-300 with Sigma 1.4X is slightly better IQ wise then the 70-200 VR2 with 2x as well. AF speed there is a draw.
The 120-300 reminds me a lot of the 200-400 in that from 120 to about 280 it's just money.
Maybe I just got lucky and got the world's best 120-300 but that's my take.
If the new version of the 120-300 speeds up AF with the limiter then it's going to be 1 heck of a setup IMHO.
The 120-300 OS was of interest to me until I reviewed the Monkey's comments from start to finish. ( https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1129895/0?keyword=sigma,120-300#10787653 ). He ultimately concluded that the keeper percentage was unacceptable and thus returned to his trustworthy 300/4 AFS. This was not, however, the recently announced "newest version" which, given Sigma's history of time delay between announcement and availability, probably will not hit the market until the middle of next year or so.
Ariel777, thanks for additional input on the 24-120. Im leaning more and more in that direction.
Rd4tile, interesting observations on the 120-300 OS and the Sigma 2x. It will be interesting to see what the next gen lens is like. It has me cautiously optimistic. I did read trenchmonkey's thread. What I saw was amazing shots out of that lens; even with the Sigma 2x TC. One would certainly think the focus limiter on the new 'Sport' version should bump the keepers up (and perhaps the use of the D800 would too?). The detail in woos' 100% crop image with a 2x TC on is amazing! The big difference for me vs trenchmonkey's shooting is I will be using it for wildlife (not too many Cheetahs either!).
If I making this switch from Canon to Nikon, I'm doing it as part of a long term plan. So if it takes another 6 - 9 months for the new lens to come out, so be it.
I rented a Sigma 120-300 OS to use with my D800e while shooting bears in Katmai in August. I was primarily using my 5D3 + 100-400 & 500. The D800 was backup. I didn't shoot the Sigma as much as I would have liked and had no time to do any harcore comparisons but I was pleased with the results enough to be considering the new 120-300 when it's offered. IQ-wise, to me the 120-300 was on par with my 100-400 which was just back from Canon for repair and calibration. The 120-300 may have been slightly less contrasty than my 100-400 (and that could be a DSLR diifference, not a lens difference)but otherwise they were comparable (the OS worked better then the old IS on the 100-400 tho). The 120-300 is pretty nice to handhold altho it can get heavy after a while. I found the AF accuracy and speed acceptable but not breathtaking I didn't use any TCs on it so can't comment on that IQ issue. Oh, and my 120-300 observations are based on using it with the D800e set on 1.2 crop (for the etxra fps when dealing with active bears).
I'll be very interested in reviews of the new version when it's release (if I decide I'm staying with Nikon for a while!).
akclimber, thanks for the update. I think your last sentence sums up where I am at right now. I think I have researched this as far as I can right now and just have to wait for the new 120-300 to come out. It will be interesting to see how much the focus limiter helps the AF. Does the new lens bring the weight down at all from the 6.5lbs? Does it have strap lugs? Is it as good or better than the current one with Sigma TCs (the feel I get now is the current one is excellent with the 1.4 but loses a tiny bit to a fair bit with the 2.0)? I will also do a hands on test of the D800 & 24-120 against (probably) the 5D MIII and the 24-105. Then it will be time to swallow hard and make a decision!
EverLearning wrote:
bmwrider75, thank you for the great post and sharing your experiences. It seems that most people say it is a good lens or even a very good lens, which as you and I have noted, is somewhat of a departure from the pretty critical reviews. "Can't quite figure out". My thoughts as well!
Airphoto, thanks for the update. This is great info to know (even though a bit disappointing).
Just to be clear the 120-300 and the 2x sigma is a very good combination. You will want to keep your shutter speed up and vibrations down (dont shoot from a running car even in park)
Hovever the 120-300 and teh 1.4 is exceptional. I leave it on mine all the time
EverLearning wrote:
I will also do a hands on test of the D800 & 24-120 against (probably) the 5D MIII and the 24-105. Then it will be time to swallow hard and make a decision!
Given the need you're describing for a mid-range zoom--family and vacation pictures--there should be no practical difference between the two systems.
Which camera's ergonomics do you prefer? That can be significantly more important than resolution and dynamic range. Modern SLR and lens performance has become so good these days that technical specifications are becoming less relevant than other criteria.
For what it's worth, chances are that your family will feel differently about being photographed if you learn to do it very well. If you want to improve your portraiture skills, a part of that equation can be the use of a fast, prime lens. Don't be so sure that you need a midrange zoom because it's more likely to generate boring snapshots than flattering portraits.
When people see themselves rendered by a very fast, short-telephoto lens, their eyes often light up with pleasant surprise. It will also force you to shoot with greater discipline, paying more attention to perspective and composition.
Finally, I can't comment on the 120-300, but I do have a Sigma 300 f/2.8 prime lens with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. After a few years of using it, the only thing I can really complain about is the synthetic coating on the lens body that scratches off easily. Otherwise, it's the most efficient way I can reach those focal lengths and has been a joy to use.
Good luck and have fun! I don't see any potential disappointment with any of the choices you're considering.
With the Sigma 2.0x TC, what is deficient using the 120-300; colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, 
I didn't use any TCs on it so can't comment on that IQ issue. Oh, and my 120-300 observations are based on using it with the D800e set on 1.2 crop (for the etxra fps when dealing with active bears).